Study: Western populations endorse support for Ukraine
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
New study by LMU and the University of Konstanz shows broad public approval for the support of Ukraine to maintain its political and territorial sovereignty.
The possibility of high casualty numbers and the risk of nuclear escalation constrain support and carry more weight than economic costs.
Over 10,000 people in five major NATO countries, supporting Ukraine, were surveyed for the study.
Most people in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy clearly endorse military support for Ukraine. They overwhelmingly reject Russia's positions on territorial claims and restrictions on Ukraine's political sovereignty. However, their approval has its limits: In particular, high casualty numbers for Ukraine and the danger of nuclear escalation reduce public backing, while economic burdens are scarcely a factor for the publics. These were the findings of a joint project located at LMU, in which researchers from LMU and the University of Konstanz compared data from a survey of the largest NATO arms exporting countries. This was the first study of its kind and its results have appeared in the journal Nature Communications. The survey was conducted between June and August 2023.
Over 10,000 people were surveyed for the study, which was carried out by Junior Professor Lukas Rudolph from the University of Konstanz and Fabian Haggerty and Professor Paul W. Thurner from the Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science at LMU Munich. “We investigated whether Western governments can count on stable support from their populations for the support of Ukraine,” explains Paul W. Thurner, Chair of Empirical Political Research and Policy Analysis at LMU. A key part of this was ascertaining how citizens weighed up the moral, strategic, and economic costs of support for Ukraine.
New study design allows causal inferences
The basis of the study, which was financially supported by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF), were two survey experiments. In the first, participants were asked to evaluate war scenarios and their possible consequences – such as military losses, territorial concessions, and the risk of nuclear escalation. The second experiment concerned the specific consequences of political measures, as participants were asked to evaluate things like the delivery of tanks, fighter jets, and air defense systems and specify what consequences they would expect from the respective form of support – such as more human suffering and material destruction in Ukraine or a faster end to the war.
“This form of survey experiment allows us to draw causal inferences as you can with lab experiments,” says Thurner. “Unlike conventional surveys, we don’t just pose the simple question as to agreement or disagreement, but simulate precisely the kind of complex dilemmas that policymakers face, or which we hear discussed in talk shows every day.” This enables the researchers to precisely measure how people weight specific political options with respect to abstract war scenarios – and what are the strongest influences on their decisions.
“The results show that although the majority clearly endorses support for Ukraine,” says Rudolph, “the consideration of possible human suffering – especially high civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side – limits their approval of certain military strategies.” Meanwhile, the risk of nuclear escalation also weighs heavily in the balance. By contrast, financial disadvantages, expressed in terms of gross domestic product, play an “astonishingly” small role, notes Rudolph.
Similar patterns in all five countries
While the answers of the respondents across the five Western countries exhibit virtually identical patterns in relation to humanitarian costs, economic disadvantages, and risks of escalation, the limits of approval vary sharply on other issues. Respondents in the United Kingdom, Germany, and United States strongly insist on the full sovereignty of Ukraine, whereas respondents in France and Italy are less forceful in their rejection of curtailments to Ukrainian sovereignty. And with regard to possible territorial concessions, Italian citizens in particular have a less critical attitude and differentiate themselves in this way from the publics in the other four countries.
“The study also reveals a strong polarization,” explains Fabian Haggerty. “Depending on a person’s political orientation or worldview, opinions on support for Ukraine diverge sharply.” This polarization does not run along classic left-right lines, but according to attitudes toward the West: Thus, around a quarter of respondents with a strongly pro-Western attitude maintain their support even in the face of large risks and costs, whereas a similarly large proportion of respondents with anti-Western (pro-Russian) attitudes view this with skepticism.
Divided opinions on tanks and fighter jets
This difference becomes particularly apparent in relation to concrete weapons aid. Although the delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine is welcomed in all groups that fundamentally endorse support for the country, opinions on tanks and fighter jets widely diverge. Whereas the pro-Western group associates this with a shortening of the duration of the war, for instance, the anti-Western group sees risks. The sending of Western ground troops, meanwhile, is rejected by almost all respondents.
“Our investigation is the first systematic study of how Western populations weigh complex decisions and potential consequences in relation to a highly politicized war,” explains Thurner. “The clear public backing for the support of Ukraine on the one hand, and the distinct polarization and red lines for the support within Western society on the other, show that governments must carefully weigh up humanitarian risks and escalation dangers. Only then can they maintain the long-term support of voters.”
Journal
Nature Communications
Article Title
Examining public support for Ukraine’s defense against autocratic aggression
Article Publication Date
9-Jan-2026
PUTIN'S DAILY WAR ON CIVILIANS
By AFP
January 13, 2026
Russia has launched daily attack on Ukraine with missiles and drones, mainly targeting energy infrastructure - Copyright AFP SERGEY BOBOK
SERGEY BOBOK
Russia pummelled a power plant early Tuesday as it kept up pressure on Ukraine’s battered energy system, while unidentified drones hit two oil tankers in the Black Sea.
Four people were killed in Ukraine as Russia fired more than two dozen missiles and hundreds of drones overnight. Moscow has hit Ukraine with daily drone and missile barrages in recent months, targeting energy infrastructure and cutting power and heating in the frigid depths of winter.
Meanwhile, two Greek-owned oil tankers were hit in the Black Sea on Tuesday, one of which was scheduled to load Kazakh oil on Russia’s coast, officials said.
Ukraine, which has repeatedly struck Russia’s energy sector in retaliation for its neighbour’s invasion, did not immediately comment.
The two tankers, the Maltese-flagged “Matilda” and Liberian-flagged “Delta Harmony”, did not sustain major damage, an official from Greece’s maritime ministry told AFP.
The Matilda was headed to load Kazakh oil at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) terminal near Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk when it was attacked, Kazakh state energy firm Kazmunaygas said.
“There were no injuries among the crew. According to preliminary assessments, the vessel remains seaworthy, and there are no signs of serious structural damage,” it added. The Delta Harmony’s oil tanks were empty at the time of the attack, the Kazakh energy ministry said.
– Air defence call –
The Russian attacks earlier Tuesday that killed four people targeted the eastern Kharkiv region, where an AFP reporter saw firefighters battling a fire at a postal hub and rescue workers helping survivors by lamp light in freezing temperatures.
Andriy Pidnebesny, a manager at the postal facility, said he was knocked down by the blast wave and tried — but failed — to free several colleagues still alive under the rubble.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said “several hundred thousand” households near Kyiv were without power after the strikes, and again called on allies to bolster his country’s air defence systems.
“The world can respond to this Russian terror with new assistance packages for Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
“Russia must come to learn that cold will not help it win the war,” he added.
Authorities in Kyiv and the surrounding region rolled out emergency power cuts in the hours after the attack, saying freezing temperatures were complicating their work.
AFP journalists in Kyiv saw a darkened grocery store that was running with just one or two cash registers from a rumbling generator.
DTEK, Ukraine’s largest energy provider, said Russian forces had struck one of its power plants, saying it was the eighth such attack since October.
The operator did not reveal which of its plants was struck, but said Russia had attacked its power plants more than 220 times since Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2022.
– Daily attacks –
The Ukrainian air force said that Tuesday’s bombardment included 25 missiles and 293 drones.
The Kharkiv governor gave the death toll and added that six people were wounded in the overnight hit outside the region’s main city, also called Kharkiv.
Within Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv Mayor Igor Terekhov said a Russian long-range drone struck a medical facility for children, causing a fire. No casualties were reported.
The overnight strikes hit other regions as well, including the southern city of Odesa.
Residential buildings, a hospital and a kindergarten were damaged, with at least five people wounded in two waves of attacks, regional governor Sergiy Lysak said.
Ukraine has stepped up long-range drone strikes on Russian military and energy sites in response.
Kyiv said Tuesday its forces had struck a drone manufacturing plant in the western Rostov region and the governor reported a local state of emergency there after two “enterprises” were hit.
While Ukraine did not take responsibility for the attacks on the two tankers in the Black Sea, it has targeted the CPC terminal multiple times throughout the nearly four-year war, including a naval drone strike last November that damaged one of its three mooring points.
The Ukrainian military says the strikes help drain the energy revenues Moscow uses to fund the war and are a justified response to Russia’s missile and drone attacks.
But the attacks have drawn frustration from Kazakhstan, which transports around 80 percent of its oil through the CPC terminal.
No comments:
Post a Comment